was concealed, the street value which exceeded one million Rupees, and all the circumstances of the case, the Court found the Victim a drug trafficker, in breach of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 8. The Complainant submits that the Court sentenced the Victim to 32 years penal servitude, less the 20 months spent in remand, and concluded that the Victim embarked on a bold enterprise of importing, by air from another country into Mauritius, a relatively substantial amount of cocaine. 9. The Complainant submits that the Victim appealed against the judgment in the Court of Criminal Appeal. On 25 January 2012, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal and ordered that the period spent by the Victim in custody, pending the hearing of the appeal, be deemed as served sentence. 10. The Complainant submits that the Victim then applied for special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Complainant submits that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which decides petitions for special leave, denied the application on the ground that that there was “no serious risk that a serious miscarriage of justice had occurred in the case.” The Complainant further submits that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the final Court of Appeal for the Republic of Mauritius. 11. The Complainant submits that the Victim’s right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal had been breached, as the conduct of the Presiding Judge throughout the trial process presented “an appearance of pre-judgment and premature formation of a concluded view adverse to the defence, exhibited by a perverse instinct of unfairness, bias and an infected mind.” 12. The Complainant further submits that the Victim’s right to a fair trial was also breached by the repeated judicial interventions of the trial judge, who took over a substantial part of the examination in chief, the cross-examination and even part of the re-examination from the Counsel’s hands. 13. The Complainant avers that the breach of the independence and impartiality of the trial Court, presided over by a biased judge, further jeopardized the right to a fair trial. Articles alleged to have been violated 14. The Complainant alleges violation of Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and other relevant articles of the African Charter. Prayers 15. The Complainant requests the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Commission) to direct the Respondent State to immediately release the Victim 2